AALRR Wins Preliminary Injunction to End Two-and-a-Half-Week Strike

03.28.2025

On March 26, 2025, AALRR Partners Ruth Bond and Jenica Maldonado persuaded the Santa Clara County Superior Court to issue a preliminary injunction ending a historic strike of workers at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ("VTA"), finding that the strike had caused irreparable harm to VTA and the public’s health, safety and welfare. On March 10, the day that the strike commenced, VTA filed a lawsuit alleging that the union representing its employees, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265 (“ATU”), had breached a “no-strike” clause in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). At the preliminary injunction hearing on Wednesday, Ms. Maldonado argued, and the Court agreed, that plaintiff VTA has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its breach of contract claim.

VTA provides affordable transportation services to approximately 100,000 riders daily throughout Santa Clara County and beyond. Most of those riders rely almost exclusively on VTA to get to work, school, medical appointments and other essential activities. For decades ATU, which represents 1500 employees including bus and light rail operators, maintenance staff and dispatchers, has agreed not to strike because of the essential public service ATU workers provide. ATU’s strike had brought transit services to a standstill, stranding riders, most of whom cannot afford alternative transportation such as Uber or Lyft.

For several months leading up to the strike, VTA and ATU had been in intense negotiations for a successor contract, as the existing CBA had an end date of March 3, 2025. The parties had exchanged numerous proposals to amend the contract including competing proposals for a wage increase. In February, VTA offered ATU a 9.3% wage increase over three years, while ATU demanded a 19% increase. Although the parties’ negotiations were ongoing, ATU commenced a strike one week after the contract term ended, claiming that the contract’s provisions were no longer in effect. However, the contract language clearly states that the CBA would remain “in full force and effect” during negotiations for a successor contract, and until a new CBA was in place.

In its complaint and request for a preliminary injunction, VTA argued that despite the contract’s expiration, all provisions were still effective as neither party had terminated the contract under its termination provision and negotiations were ongoing. VTA argued that ATU had thus breached the no-strike clause, causing irreparable harm to VTA riders and crippling VTA’s core function of providing affordable transit services throughout the County. ATU argued that the CBA was no longer in effect because the parties had reached impasse in negotiations, that the strike effectively terminated the contract, and that its members generally had a right to strike under ATU’s enabling statute.

Partner Jenica Maldonado argued on behalf of VTA at the March 26th preliminary injunction hearing. ATU claimed that the strike had not caused irreparable harm and that the Court did not have jurisdiction over VTA’s breach of contract claim because, instead of going to court, VTA was required to follow certain procedures in its enabling statute, the Public Utilities Code. Ms. Maldonado argued that the Court did have jurisdiction over VTA’s breach of contract claim under Labor Code section 1126, which allows any party to a contract to sue for breach. Ms. Maldonado stated that ATU’s claim that the strike had not caused irreparable harm was “preposterous.” Ms. Bond and Ms. Maldonado had submitted to the Court samples of the hundreds of emails VTA had received from distressed customers describing the negative impact of the strike, including an asthmatic who could not get medication, elderly and disabled citizens who could not receive essential care and services, and students who could not get to school.

Judge Nishigaya ultimately decided in favor of VTA and issued the preliminary injunction finding that (1) VTA had met its burden to show irreparable harm to VTA and the community based on extensive evidence presented by VTA that riders could not engage in essential activities (work, school, medical appointments) because of the strike and (2) there was a reasonable probability that VTA would ultimately succeed on its breach of contract claim, which is still pending. The Judge ordered an immediate end to the strike, enjoined employees from further picketing and directed all employees to return to work.

VTA recently increased its wage proposal to an 11% raise over three years, but ATU is still demanding 19%. Though Judge Nishigaya had no authority to order the parties to reach a deal, he encouraged the parties to resume contract negotiations. “I know both sides have a strong desire to serve the public, and I thank both sides for that strong desire,” he said.

Kevin Dale, leader of AALRR’s Public Entity Labor and Employment Practice Group, stated, “We are happy with the outcome not only for our client, but for the thousands of local riders of the VTA system.”

Of Counsel Joshua Wiser and Associate Abigail Mendez are part of the team representing VTA in this matter.

Click Here to View the Complaint Document